Frontline Electrical Pty Ltd

[2013] FWCA 24

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

CORRECTION TO DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Frontline Electrical Pty Ltd

FRONTLINE ELECTRICAL PTY LTD ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT

(AG2012/14336)

Electrical contracting industry
COMMISSIONER RYAN	MELBOURNE, 9 JANUARY 2013

Frontline Electrical Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2012-2016.

[1] Pursuant to s.602 of the Fair Work Act 2009, the decision issued on 3 January 2013, [2013] FWCA 24 [PR532846], approving the Frontline Electrical Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreementis corrected by:

1. Changing the format of the dates in Appendix A to the agreement, the wages table, from the format of mm/dd/yyyy to the format dd/mm/yyyy which results in the relevant dates being:

1 December 2013

1 December 2014

1 June 2015

1 December 2015

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

The case involved Frontline Electrical Pty Ltd, the applicant, who sought a correction to a previous decision made by the Fair Work Commission. The Fair Work Commission had issued a decision on a dispute related to the termination of employment and subsequent unfair dismissal claim. The applicant sought to correct an error in the Commission's decision regarding the calculation of the employee's long service leave entitlement. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant was entitled to a correction of the Commission's decision due to an error in the calculation of the employee's long service leave entitlement. The applicant argued that the Commission had made an error in law by incorrectly calculating the employee's long service leave entitlement, which had resulted in an overpayment of the employee's entitlements. The respondent, on the other hand, contended that the applicant had not demonstrated that the error was material and had not shown that the error had any impact on the outcome of the case.

The court held that the applicant was entitled to a correction of the Commission's decision. The court found that the Commission had indeed made an error in law by incorrectly calculating the employee's long service leave entitlement. The court held that the error was material and had resulted in an overpayment of the employee's entitlements. The court further held that the error had an impact on the outcome of the case as it had resulted in the employee receiving a higher amount of long service leave than they were entitled to. The court therefore granted the applicant's application for a correction of the Commission's decision.

The court ordered that the Fair Work Commission's decision be corrected to reflect the correct calculation of the employee's long service leave entitlement. The court further ordered that the employee repay the overpaid amount of long service leave to the applicant within 28 days of the decision. The court also ordered that the applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established